”I believe that many of my general statements about the employment of the Greek and Aramaic terms by Josephus and the Targums as strictly applicable to crucifixion would be strongly contested by the Swedish scholar Gunnar Samuelsson, author of a very learned, not to say pedantic, recent doctoral dissertation on the subject published in 2011. Crucifixion in Late Antiquity: An Inquiry into the Background and Significance of the New Testament Terminology of Crucifixion presents a full survey of the entire Greek, Latin and Hebrew, biblical and early Jewish literature, from Homer (c. 8th century BCE) to Josephus and the New Testament (c. 100 CE).”

Geza Vermes in Standpoint Magazine, April 2013.

Dear Dr Samuelsson,

Let me congratulate you on your graduation! I have seen a xerox of your fine dissertation (which I shall be glad to own) and would like to tell you that, as a philologist whose areas of competence are in Archaic and Classical Greek, I very much support your conclusion that 'suspension' is actually a better glose of the words belonging to the family of stauros than 'crucifixion'. I was disgusted by Caragounis' review, where rhetoric and vitriol loom rather larger than verbal scholarship. 

Yours truly

Dear professor Samuelsson,

I received the news about your work about crucifixion. It seems to spread well over the internet, and appeared in newspapers in several languages! The viewpoint that stauros does not mean a "cross", is in agreement with what I have been believing since 20 years. E.W. Bullinger noted in his Appendix 162 to the Companion Bible that to Homer stauros meant just an upright pole.

     In the book "Gems from the New Testament" from Vivian Capel, there are also some pages on the topic "Execution stake (Gk. stauros)", with some brief notes like: Livy refutes that the Romans uses crosses for execution at that time. Josephus, in Antiquities, book 17, 10:10, mentions that 2,000 were "crucified" at once. That can hardly be done if crosses with "crossbeams" had to be made for all of them.

      Unfortunately, some of the article titles I've seen about your book, make it seem as if you had some kind of a "muslim" view: that Jesus was not executed at all. So of course, some people are shocked and "react emotionally instead of logically."

With sincere greetings,

Dear Mr. Samuelsson,

I wanted to congratulate you on completing your thesis, and to thank you, as the reporting of your work is a necessary reminder to many of the voracity of the Bible.

        The work you have completed will encourage other Christians, such as myself, to actually read what is in the actual Bible and not what man has added. I personally view the bible as historically accurate, and further, quite scientifically accurate, provided as you have been quoted: "The text of the Bible is sufficient. We do not need to add anything."

Once again, congratulations and thanks.

Dear Gunnar,

I enjoyed reading the abstract and your interviews on the subject.  It's an issue that many have known of for years but has always been considered "unorthodox"... higher praise could hardly be given.  :-)

        My personal favorites for that topic is showing someone Gal 3:13 and then Deut 21:22,23 in the same bible.  In most Bibles Gal will say "cross" while Deut will say "tree", even though it's a quote!  There's a lot of translator bias out there in many translations, but when you find it and show someone they get offended and think you're trying to attack the Bible itself.  Even with educated people it's still difficult as there's so much emotional investment in many beliefs.  I suspect they feel "If I admit this is wrong, maybe everything else will be wrong" so they fight hard against the smallest changes. 

        Be glad when they hate you for speaking the truth.

John 15:18-25; Matt. 5:10,11

Agape,

Mr.  Samuelsson,

I just read a post on your thesis, not the whole 400 pages but enough to think that you have made a very good point about how the interpretation of historical writings .. albeit the Bible.. can be determined by the person(s) deciphering it, and not the actuality of the meaning.   I agree with you in your thinking of crucifixions.. especially when even the 'nailing' of Jesus commonly associated with His crucifixion is known to be incorrect.

    It was a good choice for you to make for your thesis, and thanks to minds like yours, more truths may be forthcoming.

Hi.

I am writing you to tell you that the thesis you wrote is absolutely phenomenal. i can tell this will be a good read and I do feel this was a God given work you created Sir. With that, I would like to purchase your thesis if it for sale. I a a fan of study and would love to read you work and enjoy the discovery of this subject. Please contact me with how I can do this.

Thanks, i wish you the best in faith.

Mr.  Samuelsson,

That was a very interesting hypothesis.  I guess you'll get a lot of feedback since it was featured on AOL today.  I heard a similarly interesting theory about 40 years ago, and was wondering if you had ever run across it in your teachings.  I should mention that I'm Jewish, and that my rabbi told this to our Sunday School class in the late sixties.  It goes something like this:

        Crucifixion was a form of punishment, but not always used to the point of execution.  When the Roman soldier pieced his abdomen, this was a primitive form of medicine, because it would be otherwise impossible to defecate in an upright position on a crucifix.  Jesus was still alive but unconscious when removed from the cross.  Medical science had not yet advanced to the point where breathing or blood circulation were indicators of life.  Consequently, it was common among the Jews to place a body upright in a hole in the ground rather than perform an actual burial, so that no one would ever die an unjust death.  (As an aside, my wife had an uncle in the Philippines who was declared dead and then woke up in the middle of his funeral about 20 years ago.)  As the rest of the theory goes, Jesus regained consciousness, recovered, and taught for many years after that.

Mr. Samuelsson, 

I applaud your courage to pursue and publish an unpopular hypothesis.  Whether or not Jesus died on a cross or suffered a similar, torturous fate -- His death should not be not rendered meaningless.  For Christians, the only reality that matters is that He died.  I wish you well in your search for the real truth. 

Best

Mr. Samuelsson, 

Thanks for your courtesy.  I'm a 70-year-old Baptist for the past 20 years. Among many points of contention is the cross vs the torture stake issue and the official name for God.  My position with her is that it matters not exactly how Jesus died for us, but that he did; nor does what we call God as He is who He is.  With your dissertation, you have made it matter even more to speak about the cross. As you well know, there are very many things that none of us will ever know with absolute certainty while on Earth; which is what I will tell her about your theory.

God Bless,

Dear Mr. Samuelsson,

Thank you for taking the time and effort to thoroughly research this matter

regarding "stauros."  Thank you for being a thinking man that truly wants

the New Testament and Bible represented as truthfully as possible.

Sincerely,

Dear Gunnar,

Your thesis is absolutely correct according to Scripture! Jesus did not die on a Roman crucifix and the Scripture tells us as much. But before confirming your thesis using Scripture, a Scriptural principle must be established using Scripture, of course.

        How shall every matter in Scripture be established? In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every matter be established. This principle is so intertwined in Scripture as to be irrefutable. For example, how many dreams did Joseph have? Well, he had two (Gen 37:9). And how many dreams did Pharaoh have? He had two and Joseph tells us that the Lord will always give at least two witnesses if He is going to establish a matter (Gen 41:32). Deuteronomy picks up on t he subject when talking about putting someone to death (Deut 17:6). Jesus mentions the principle in  Math 18:16 and John 8:17. Paul mentions it in 2 Cor 13:1. And where two or three are gathered in His name, there He is in the midst of them (Math 18:20). And when someone prophesies or gives a tongues in a local assembly, it shall be by two or three and then others will interpret (1Cor 14:27-29). And what about the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3? The interpretation should be on the tip of  your tongue by now.       

In any event, if I can find two or three witnesses in Scripture describing how Jesus was crucified that are other than crucifixion then Scripture itself can be used as evidence to support your thesis unless one likes arguing with and changing Scripture which I would not recommend doing since the Author might not take kindly to such shenanigans. So, let's meditate on the following Scriptures:

Acts 5:30

Acts 10:39

Acts 13:29

Galations 3:13

1 Peter 2:24

As you can see, in the mouth of no less than five witnesses, Jesus was crucified on a tree possibly using a cross member to attach his hands but he was for sure not crucified on a Roman crucifix.

Yours in Christ,

Dear Brother in Christ,

Some years ago, an evangelist in our church stated he was convinced that the traditional idea of the cross being two crossed pieces of timber was more than the Romans thought criminals were worth.  He believed Christ was crucified on a single pole, hands nailed above the head, which he called a “Roman gibbet”.  (I’m not sure of the spelling)

        A friend of mine from Iran once referred to controversy as “throwing dirt in the air.”  A lot of dirt has been thrown in the air over your work.  In the midst of the blowing dust, I believe I see someone who diligently and sincerely sought the truth.   I would like to offer you my gratitude for your hard work in collecting the facts on this subject.  I have a sense that I could rely on the truthfulness of your work .

In the midst of the storm, may the peace of God rule in your heart.

May the truth be known.  May God be gloried.  Amen.

Dear Mr Samuelsson

This information was very informative and beneficial.  I have the privilege of investigating this subject of study about  Biblical history for the past forty years.  I am not as astute in the exact science of history as you may be and I have no awards for any of my research.  Nor do I claim to have any divine insight the scriptures.  I do however possess some information you might find interesting in your continued study on this subject. Not that you have not already considered information and researched it for yourself in great detail.

        If this is of interest to you, I am pleased then to share this and any other information I have gathered in my long search for information on this and other Biblical subjects on history.

        Some of the reference work on this subject is as quoted, however I would be more then happy to share any other source of my information. 

Thank you

Sir,

I am impressed by your research, but what conclusion did you find that would render the belief that Jesus was crucified on a cross as not probable? What I actually read and so believe is that there were many other ways that Christ could have been put to death. I did not read that you have proven that he did not die by crucifixion on a cross. My question then is, what is the point of your thesis? You came to no conclusions that proved or disproved what Christians have believed since the 2nd century AD as stated in your thesis.

My concern was brought on by an AOL News Headline that reads: "Little Evidence Jesus Died on a Cross, Says Scholar" This would leave the reader to initially believe that you are stating that Jesus' death was a myth thus giving the reader a difficult time understanding the true meaning of your thesis.

Over all, I give you an "A" minus.

 

Mr. Samuelsson, 

you are 100% correct in stating that a cross was not the method that would be used. much more likely was a stake in the ground.

        2nd, throughout the old and new testaments use of any images or symbols for God or his Son were expressly forbidden. thus assuming He exists, God would never have allowed a "cross" to be used as the focal point of Christ's death knowing that it would be used falsely by millions upon millions in violation of His Laws.

        While i am not a scholar, i was studying at a major u.s research university when i went through a long, near death injury then recovery. upon recovering i studied many ancient hebrew and greek texts trying to understand if the christianity i had been raised with was real. i consulted various professors in different disciplines to help me, often using anaologies in order to avoid their religious biases, pro and con. in the end i was shocked at the unbelievably inaccurate versions of so many biblical events 99% of so called christian and catholic-type churches practiced. it shook me to my core.

        My mom worried i was becoming cult-ish so i met with her lutheran pastor. after he studied with me he too could easily see the tremendous amount of false teaching. unfortunately he fell back into the "i just have to have faith" mode, and rationalized that no one really knows God's mysteries. thus acting typical of most people of so called "faith".

        Well, no God i will worship expects us to act and believe blindly. maybe we can't know everything in this life, but most things are very easy to discern if we are objective in our study. i sure did not want to find out that so many of my previous christian teachings and traditions were provably false. it made my life very uncomfortable in not joining family and friends in keeping false traditions and practices. but the facts and truth were clear.

        Thanks for your efforts to add accuracy, objectivity, and perspective to such issues.

Dear Sir,

I come from Burkina Faso, in west Africa; I am also a christian and I've read about your thesis concerning the crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

        In my view, the crucifixion cannot be explained as we cannot explain or demonstrate how God Himself is. All this can only be understood or seen by the eyes of faith. It is only in the Spirit that we can accept all things that concern God. The Bible even says that the wisdom according to God is madness for this world; that is to say we can't explain the things concerning God by the wisdom or the knowledge of this world. So, my prayer is that God gives us more spiritual intelligence to allow us understand and accept Him as He is in His greatness.

        Thank you for reading me and may God bless you in the Name of Jesus Christ!

Dear Mister Samuelsson,

I am from the Netherlands, it is vey important that people know the truth.

Jesus has been sentence to death by jewish law, Ponitius Pilatus said to executed him by his law. That is why the crowd keep on shouting "hang him on the stauros"  Deuteronomium 21 verb 22 and 23 en Joshua 8 verb 28 and 29 says that according jewish law criminals should be hang on a straight wood, but the body must be taking of the wood before nightfall that is what also happened at Jesus conviction.

I wish you the best of luck

Just to let you know that the national U.S. news this morning is about Gunnar Samuelson and his interesting thesis. I will look forward to reading the manuscript.

Cordially,

Lutheran theologian

Mr.  Samuelsson,

I just read a post on your thesis, not the whole 400 pages but enough to think that you have made a very good point about how the interpretation of historical writings .. albeit the Bible.. can be determined by the person(s) deciphering it, and not the actuality of the meaning.   I agree with you in your thinking of crucifixions.. especially when even the 'nailing' of Jesus commonly associated with His crucifixion is known to be incorrect.

    It was a good choice for you to make for your thesis, and thanks to minds like yours, more truths may be forthcoming.

"I've learned that people will forget what you said, people will forget what you did, but people will never forget how you made them feel."

1. -Maya Angelou
   

Your thesis about the method of crucifixion

That was a very interesting hypothesis.  I guess you'll get a lot of feedback since it was featured on AOL today.  I heard a similarly interesting theory about 40 years ago, and was wondering if you had ever run across it in your teachings.  I should mention that I'm Jewish, and that my rabbi told this to our Sunday School class in the late sixties.  It goes something like this:

    Crucifixion was a form of punishment, but not always used to the point of execution.  When the Roman soldier pieced his abdomen, this was a primitive form of medicine, because it would be otherwise impossible to defecate in an upright position on a crucifix.  Jesus was still alive but unconscious when removed from the cross.  Medical science had not yet advanced to the point where breathing or blood circulation were indicators of life.  Consequently, it was common among the Jews to place a body upright in a hole in the ground rather than perform an actual burial, so that no one would ever die an unjust death.  (As an aside, my wife had an uncle in the Philippines who was declared dead and then woke up in the middle of his funeral about 20 years ago.)  As the rest of the theory goes, Jesus regained consciousness, recovered, and taught for many years after that.

Regards,

San Francisco, California

Mr. Samuelsson, 

I applaud your courage to pursue and publish an unpopular hypothesis.  Whether or not Jesus died on a cross or suffered a similar, torturous fate -- His death should not be not rendered meaningless.  For Christians, the only reality that matters is that He died.  I wish you well in your search for the real truth. 

Best,

Dear Mr. Samuelsson,

 Thank you for taking the time and effort to thoroughly research this matter regarding "stauros."  Thank you for beiinga thinking man that truly wants the New Testament and Bible represented as truthfully as possible.

 Sincerely,

Austin, Texas, United States

Dear professor Samuelsson,

I received the news about your work about crucifixion. It seems to spread well over the internet, and appeared in newspapers in several languages!

    The viewpoint that stauros does not mean a "cross", is in agreement with what I have been believing since 20 years.
    E.W. Bullinger noted in his Appendix 162 to the Companion Bible that to Homer stauros meant just an upright pole. In the book "Gems from the New Testament" from Vivian Capel, there are also some pages on the topic "Execution stake (Gk. stauros)", with some brief notes like: Livy refutes that the Romans uses crosses for execution at that time. Josephus, in Antiquities, book 17, 10:10, mentions that 2,000 were "crucified" at once. That can hardly be done if crosses with "crossbeams" had to be made for all of them.

    Unfortunately, some of the article titles I've seen about your book, make it seem as if you had some kind of a "muslim" view: that Jesus was not executed at all. So of course, some people are shocked and "react emotionally instead of logically."

In fact I would like to order and read your book, but it seems that it is already out of stock. So I'll wait for my turn.

With sincere greetings,

Samuelsson's extensive personal studies have confirmed what some of us were already aware of--namely, that there is no textual nor historical evidence that the instrument of Christ's execution was a crossbeam.

I applaud him for his candor and honesty in admitting the results of his consideration of the evidence; yet it is clear from his statements that he remains (stubbornly?) ensconced in his traditional belief.